92 Decision Citation: BVA 92-15406
Y92
BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420
DOCKET NO. 91-21 115 ) DATE
)
)
)
THE ISSUES
1. Entitlement to service connection for a chronic skin
disorder.
2. Entitlement to service connection for a chronic back
disorder.
3. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for
postoperative residuals of a prostatic node.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans
WITNESS AT HEARINGS ON APPEAL
Appellant
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
William R. Harryman, Jr., Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
This case came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the
Board) on appeal from rating decisions of the Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, Regional Office (hereinafter RO). The
veteran had verified honorable active service from August
1972 to October 1988, plus more than five years unverified
prior service. A rating decision in November 1989 initially
granted service connection for the veteran's prostate
disorder, and denied service connection for tinea cruris, as
not found on the last examination, and for back pain, on the
basis that no back pathology was found on the last
examination. A rating decision in December 1989 denied
increased ratings for the veteran's service connected
disabilities. A notice of disagreement regarding the issues
of service connection for skin and back disorders was
received from him in March 1990. The RO issued a statement
of the case in May 1990, and the veteran's substantive
appeal was received that same month. The substantive appeal
was apparently considered as his notice of disagreement
regarding the issues of increased ratings for sinusitis and
for the prostate disorder. A supplemental statement of the
case was issued in June 1990. At the veteran's request, a
personal hearing was held before a hearing officer in July
1990. Following that hearing, increased ratings were
granted for two disabilities which were not subsequently
indicated by the veteran as inadequate, and so his appeal of
those issues was considered withdrawn. A rating decision in
February 1991 effectuated the hearing officer's decision. A
supplemental statement of the case was issued in March
1991. The veteran's hearing testimony was apparently
considered as his substantive appeal of the issues
concerning increased ratings for sinusitis and for the
prostate node.
The appeal was received and docketed at the Board in May
1991. At the veteran's request a personal hearing was held
in January 1992 before a section of the Board. The veteran
has been represented since February 1990 by Disabled
American Veterans, which assisted him in presenting
testimony at both hearings. The case is now ready for
appellate consideration. It should be noted that, at the
time of the hearing before the Board, the veteran formally
withdrew his appeal of the denial of a compensable rating
for sinusitis.
REMAND
Upon review of the record, the Board notes that the veteran
was treated in 1974 for tinea cruris, but that subsequent
records make no mention of any recurrence until the report
of his retirement examination, which, without noting
pertinent clinical findings, assigned a diagnosis of tinea
cruris. In addition, the service medical records show that
he underwent cystoscopy and biopsy of a prostatic node in
October 1988. The records do not show any diagnosis, but
the report of the retirement examination notes the presence
of a firm, large nodular prostate. The records also show
that the veteran was treated on at least two widely
separated occasions for complaints of back pain. No
definite back pathology was identified, however, nor was a
diagnosis of any chronic back disorder assigned.
During his personal hearings, the veteran referred to the
above inservice treatment, and also indicated that the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) examinations he has been
afforded have been totally inadequate, at least as they
pertained to the issues currently on appeal. It does not
appear that a full examination of his back, including
X-rays, has been accomplished. Neither does the record show
that he has been afforded a full VA urological examination.
The veteran has indicated that he has urinary frequency and
urgency up to 50 times each day, as well as decreased
libido, and that his tinea cruris is nonresponsive to
treatment, at least during the warmer months. He has
submitted a color photograph purporting to document its
current presence.
The Board is mindful of its statutory duty to assist the
veteran in the development of facts pertinent to his claim.
In that regard, and wishing to accord the veteran every
possible opportunity to demonstrate his entitlement to the
claimed benefits, we believe that additional development of
the record is necessary prior to our rendering a final
appellate determination in this case. Therefore, this case
is REMANDED for the following actions:
1. The veteran should be requested to
furnish the names and addresses of all
physicians and medical facilities
which have rendered treatment for the
listed disorders since his retirement
from service, including the dates of
any such treatment. The RO should
then request copies of the records of
all treatment indicated by the
veteran. He should also be requested
to indicate precisely what back
symptomatology or disorder he is
claiming as service connected.
2. The RO should then schedule the
veteran for special VA orthopedic,
dermatologic and urological
examinations by examiners who have not
previously examined him. The claims
folder, including the medical records
requested above, and a copy of this
REMAND decision should be made
available to the examiners prior to
their examinations. All indicated
special studies, to include X-rays of
the veteran's back, should be
accomplished. The dermatological
examiner's report should state whether
tinea cruris is now present and
whether the disability appears to have
reached the stage of chronicity. The
orthopedic examiner's report should
indicate what, if any, chronic back
disorder is now present, and whether
the veteran's inservice symptomatology
is reasonably attributable to such a
disorder. In addition to describing
fully the current clinical findings
and reported symptomatology, the
urologic examiner should be requested
to render an opinion as to whether the
veteran's claimed symptoms of urinary
frequency and urgency and of decreased
libido are reasonably related to any
clinical pathology now present, and,
in particular, to the prostatic node
noted and biopsied in service.
3. Upon completion of the requested
development, the RO should again
consider the veteran's claims. If
action taken remains adverse to him,
he and his accredited representative
should be furnished a supplemental
statement of the case and be given an
opportunity to respond thereto. The
case should then be returned to the
Board according to the usual appellate
procedures.
No action on the part of the veteran is required until he
receives further notice. By this action, the Board
intimates no opinion, either legal or factual, as to the
ultimate disposition of the issues on appeal. Appellate
consideration of all the stated issues is deferred pending
completion of the requested development.
BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420
NANCY R. ROBIN B. KANNEE
ALBERT D. TUTERA
Under 38 U.S.C. § 7252 (1992), only a decision of the Board
of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Veterans Appeals. This remand is in the nature of
a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of
the Board on the merits of your appeal.